You get both, and that's a deliberate design choice rather than a byproduct. Every interview produces two separate views: an AI-generated report and a structured interviewer scorecard filled in by the human. Together, they're designed to make hiring decisions consistent and easy to compare across candidates, rather than leaving each interviewer to rely on their own memory and notes.
The two documents hold genuinely different content, not overlapping copies of the same thing. The AI report holds the scores, per-skill ratings, sentiment, transcript, and recording. It's the structured, evidentiary record of what happened and what the system measured. The interviewer scorecard captures the human's own rating and comments. It's the interviewer's independent judgment, written in their own words, separate from anything the AI measured.
These are kept separate rather than merged into one number for a straightforward reason: because both follow the same structure for every candidate, your team debates the same evidence instead of relying on whoever remembers the call best. The AI isn't meant to make the hiring decision for you. It's meant to be the shared, consistent reference point that human judgment gets weighed against, candidate to candidate and interviewer to interviewer.
So to answer directly: no, neither one replaces the other. The AI report doesn't stand in for interviewer judgment, and the scorecard doesn't replace the structured data the AI captures. They're kept side by side on purpose, as two independent inputs into whatever final call your team makes.
One more detail worth knowing: you can re-analyze any interview to regenerate the transcript, scores, and summary if needed, for example after adjusting the skill map for a role. Whether re-analysis is available on every plan hasn't been specified publicly, so check with your Hyring contact for the specifics if that matters for your workflow.
